Peter,
First I just want to thank you for taking the time to go over the document and provide feedback for it. As I go over your comments, the following paragraph sums up my thoughts about the software:
This software can be viewed as an engineering tool at best. Its primary use was to extend the author's understanding of V2+. It was never intended to be used as a general tool for radio hobbyist to tune their antennas. The software is fairly buggy and not very robust. Even under normal conditions, expect to run into several problems if attempting to use this software. It’s a very poor choice for the beginner.
[/i]
Adam Savage showed us that indeed it is possible to polish a turd.
A few comments on your feedback
Pg8) Current: The author is not an amateur radio or citizens band hobbyist.
Proposed: The author is not an amateur radio enthusiast, or citizens band hobbyist.
In general, I don't place one group above the other and consider both to be hobbyists.
Pg8) Current: Because the software was written for my own personal use, there are many features that may be lacking or have not been completed.
Proposed: Because the software was written for my own personal use, there are many features that may be lacking or have not been implemented.
I want to make a distinction between features that someone may feel should be included but are not and features that have been included but may not be fully functional. Changing completed to implemented vs lacking does not make that clear.
Pg 10) Current: If we are sweeping from 1.0 to 1MHz, the first sample has an index of 0.
Proposed: Add units to left.
When using the same units, it is common to leave off the left side.
Pg 26) Current: Performing a full calibration or selecting standards is not necessary.
Proposed: Performing a full calibration, or selecting standards is not necessary.
I'm not sure about as they are both talking about how the software converts raw data into something usable. With a comma added, MSW will flag it as a grammar warning.
Pg 71) Current: The software will try and zoom into the peak and set the span to 500Hz
Proposed: remove try, no trying about it
From what I understand the software has a bug and it does not always zoom in.
I have removed the word try as suggested but this means the problem needs to be resolved. Of course, I have covered it in that one paragraph in the Scope where I state: " The software is fairly buggy and not very robust."
It can't get much clearer than that!
Pg 71) Current: Notice without the calibration, the original NanoVNA will display roughly 17dB.
Proposed: Change the sign.
Interesting. You know, I don't normally think about such things as I am considering the context. I would expect and amplifier to have a positive gain (although, it may not) and most everything else to have a loss. In this particular case because the document is stating what the display should be showing, I think it needs to change as well. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you found other sections of the document that need this clarification.
I added links to the Github and YouTube accounts to section 1.